I can almost kinda feel sorry for the bozos that thought Obama would buy them a pony, but these guys HAD to see this like a locomotive coming down the tracks. How could anyone possibly have thought Obama would have any other type of policy?
Posted on 02/08/2009 4:11:34 PM PST by Nachum
US President Barack Obama faced a host of personnel problems this week, as two top appointees bowed out because of unpaid income taxes and another pick distressed some in the Jewish community.
Slideshow: Pictures of the week Samantha Power, a Harvard University genocide expert and former Obama campaign adviser, has been appointed to the the National Security Council's multilateral institutions office. She has been criticized in the past for making statements critical of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians.
In one clip making the rounds courtesy of YouTube, Power accuses Israel of "major human rights abuses," though she distinguishes those actions from genocide. The interview was conducted in 2002, when media attention was focused on the IDF's incursion into Jenin during the second intifada's Operation Defensive Shield.
Power argued that if the United States were serious about ending such abuses, "external intervention" was needed, even though "putting something on the line might alienate a traditional domestic constituency of political and financial import," a reference to the American Jewish community.
RELATED Jews check Armenian genocide stance US envoy Mitchell to return to ME this month "Imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. I mean it's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic," she said, but "it's essential that some set of principles become the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people."
She also talked about imposing a "mammoth protection force" and "meaningful military presence."
When asked about that force during the US presidential election campaign, however, Power distanced herself from the remarks. She told Shmuel Rosner, whose blog appears on The Jerusalem Post's Web site, "Even I don't understand it" and, "This makes no sense to me," positing that she made the comments in the context of discussing the deployment of international peacekeepers.
Power concluded by stressing that whatever she might have said five years ago, she "absolutely does not believe in 'imposing a settlement.' Israelis and Arabs 'will negotiate their own peace.'"
Still, hawkish groups like the Zionist Organization of America seized on her comments as a sign of an anti-Israel perspective and criticized her appointment.
"We're really disappointed that he's appointed someone who's not only not sympathetic to Israel, but is hostile to Israel," ZOA National President Mort Klein said.
He also criticized Obama for making another pick, like the nominees who hadn't paid taxes, that hurts his "integrity," since during the presidential campaign Obama had cut off Power as an adviser after she called rival candidate Hillary Clinton a "monster" and went off-message on Iraq policy.
"Given her apparent anti-Israel bias, we are deeply concerned about her new role as head of multinational institutions, where she will have responsibilities for international organizations that are already unfriendly to Israel, such as the UN and UNRWA," said the leader of a more centrist pro-Israel organization, who spoke on condition of anonymity so his relationship with the new administration wouldn't be jeopardized. "Israel needs a friend, not another critic, when it comes to dealing with the 'blame Israel first' crowd at the UN," he said.
He did point out that Power didn't have the Israel portfolio at the National Security Council, so her role on those issues would be somewhat curtailed, making the result of her selection still unclear: "The proof will be in the pudding - and that pudding is still being mixed," he said.
Israeli officials are also somewhat comforted by the fact that Power has not been placed in direct contact with Middle East issues and are willing to take a wait and see approach. While she would not be the Israeli government's first choice, officials are waiting to see how much authority she will have and what she does once she is in office.
Power's appointment comes amid confusion on other administration posts connected to the Middle East, one of them over what role Dennis Ross will play. A memo prematurely circulated by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which he once ran, described his position as a "ambassador-at-large and senior adviser" to Secretary of State Clinton. But that announcement - as opposed to several others connected to the region, including the appointment of George Mitchell to the role of Middle East peace envoy held by Ross under the Clinton administration - has not yet come.
Mitchell's appointment, among others, has raised questions about turf battles and the chain of command, which some blame for the postponement in Ross's case. Now it seems that his role might be limited to Iran-related issues, according to Time magazine. The publication also wrote that part of the delay stemmed from the administration's own slow-moving Iran policy review.
"We want to do a very swift review. But the review is going to be comprehensive. So, what's important is getting the review right and not rushing it," US State Department acting spokesman Robert Wood said on Wednesday. "But it is something that the secretary and the president are very committed to in trying to get, you know, a policy in place with regard to Iran as early as possible."
The State Department is also reviewing whether to send an ambassador to Syria for the first time since the assassination of anti-Syrian Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri in 2005, though officials said no decision had yet been made.
"It wouldn't be such a surprise if there's a change toward Syria," said one Israeli official, noting that Obama has spoken of engaging Damascus and taking a stance much different than that of his predecessor. Israel itself engaged in indirect talks with Syrian officials before the war in Gaza last month, and an Israeli source indicated the return of a US ambassador wouldn't be problematic "as long as it's clear that the onus is on the Syrians to show they're serious about negotiations."
Must see replay of a video interview of Samantha Power’s!
Advocating U.S. Troop presence to enforce peace on West Bank (as she described it- Palestine).
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/02/ny-times-friedman-calls-for-us-troops.html
Sunday, February 08, 2009
“NY Times’ Friedman calls for US troops to build a ‘Palestinian’ reichlet”
New York Slimes columnist Tom Friedman, who fancies himself an ‘expert’ on our region, seems to suggest in Sunday’s column that the United States should commit troops to building a ‘Palestinian’ state reichlet in the West Bank Judea and Samaria. He’d like to see some of the American troops in Iraq transferred westward.
The video link is below the article.
This ties in with the Executive order to allow Hamas in U.S.
This is, as I said, the most telling indication of hussein's intentions yet.
Almost a year ago I asked the question on a 'support the troops means you must support the mission' thread....
If POTUS obama puts US troops in a DMZ between Israel and Hamas we will of course support the troops but how could we possibly support that mission?
Out of curiosity.....what church do they attend every Sunday in DC?
I can almost kinda feel sorry for the bozos that thought Obama would buy them a pony, but these guys HAD to see this like a locomotive coming down the tracks. How could anyone possibly have thought Obama would have any other type of policy?
Good lord. Is she supposed to look good in that picture?
First Church of the Self Absorbtion.....it's a nondenominational evangelical afrocentric free chruch.
I think US Jews are about to get a wake-up call.
A faculty member in my department, I hate to call him a colleague as he is a rabid liberal and whose wife is an Episcopalian minister, just returned from a trip to Israel.
In one of our first conversations since his return, which was professional and not remotely related to politics, he mentioned that one of his techs who is Jewish, is a really nice person but “those Jews in Israel really mistreat the Palestinians.”
I guess it won’t be long until some will be happy to see Jews waling around with a yellow star on their clothing and businesses.
I’m beginning to understand pre-war Germany more and more.
Yeah, I’ve always wondered if Noam Chomsky’s political views would change if he got out of his ivory tower office and lived on the west bank for a couple of years. Having car bombs blow up twenty feet away really takes the theoretical out of the viewpoint.
“Good lord. Is she supposed to look good in that picture?”
* * *
She has that same stare Bernadine Dohrn has.
If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
And American Jews chose him, because they are more committed to a faux Utopia in Florida than to Israel.
If the Palestinians take over Israel they will skip the star stage and go right to cutting throats.
A big point to recognize is that the American Jews of today aren't the same as, say, the American Jews of 1967. Those American Jews were much more traumatized by the (not so long before) Holocaust and Israel was their Jewish homeland. That was a long time ago, though, and a large percentage of American Jews today don't have that same commitment to Israel. They are much more assimilated, and all that really remains is a majority commitment to liberal Democratic politics.
Nachum, do you agree, disagree?
That is one way to put it. I believe that American Jews have been divided on Israel even years ago. The Reform movement refused to mention Israel in their prayer books. They ridiculed the day school movement and openly attacked observant Jews.
The state of Israel has been very close to perishing before, during those times you mention too. The ones who saved Israel weren't only Jews either. American Jews have been very divided in the past, both here and in Europe.
I think the Jewish Obama voters to whom you refer ARE committed to Israel - but it is an imaginary Israel, an Israel of the mind. The imaginary Israel has an imaginary "right to exist" granted by an imaginary "international community" and is protected by imaginary international "laws". These Jews are always rattling on about "Resolution 181", "Resolution 242", AS IF these entirely meaningless pieces of paper, scripted by an unsavory assembly of Chinamen, Hottentots, and barbarians have some sort of protective value for Israel.
In their imagination, Israel is a rechtsstaat, leading the way to a bright, new internationalist future.
The real, actually existing Israel, unfortunately, is a machtstaat, which exists only as long as it can produce Galil rifles and men who are willing to go into battle to kill her enemies. This real Israel is anathema to the internationalist American Jewish Obama voters, and, it now appears, they may be willing to see the real Israel destroyed because it does not measure up to their fantasies.
Yes, you're right. It's just really aggravating that Jewish Americans keep getting blamed on these threads. The Jewish 'Rats voted for Obama, so since they helped elect an anti-Israeli administration, then screw Israel. That'll teach 'em!
That is a classic, beautiful description of the U.N. then and now.:)
The real, actually existing Israel, unfortunately, is a machtstaat, which exists only as long as it can produce Galil rifles and men who are willing to go into battle to kill her enemies.
Yes, Israel has been forced to become a power state; it's either that or pack up and go find a better neighborhood.
This real Israel is anathema to the internationalist American Jewish Obama voters, and, it now appears, they may be willing to see the real Israel destroyed because it does not measure up to their fantasies.
I'm sensing that also. There is always the strong liberal Jewish need to support the 'oppressed' underdogs, even if the underdog Palestinians have only one function and that's to bedevil Israel.
It is strange, but Israel's strongest supporters have long been American Christians. And then American Jews have accused American Christians of supporting Israel in hopes of bringing about Armageddon and the second coming.:) You can't win for losing in these arguments, and it always appears hopeless.
And then American Jews have accused American Christians of supporting Israel in hopes of bringing about Armageddon and the second coming.:) You can’t win for losing in these arguments, and it always appears hopeless.
That’s because some fundamentalist Christians indeed to believe in Israel’s role in bringing about Armageddon and the Last Days. Many of these Christians hide this belief in order to appear they are not supporting Israeli’s for this reason only, but for some fundamentalist types this is their belief. It’s like ImaNutJob over in Iran. He believes that a nuclear holocaust needs to be instituted in order to bring on the return of the 12th Iman, the Mahdi, who will make everyone on earth into a Muslim and then paradise will be achieved. Both have the same basic belief of bring on turmoil so that the coming of the Mahdi, or the second coming of Christ, can occur. I find both beliefs frightening.
I do too, and the absolute arrogance, the presumption that anyone can force the hand of God, or that he/she heard some weird voice and just knows that God has chosen he/she to do something terrible to jump start the End Times is incredible.
I personally don't hang out with any Christian fundies that have such unscriptural beliefs, and I do believe that their numbers are few because it's just not Biblical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.